ArticleHeart rhythm O22026
Evaluation of the risk of hemolysis using the circular array pulsed field ablation catheter in the management of atrial fibrillation.
Article in Heart rhythm O2, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Evaluation of Hemolysis Risk, Renal Function, and Safety Among Two Pulsed Field Ablation Systems: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Journal of arrhythmia · 2026Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Procedure-related complications such as intravascular hemolysis have been reported with pulsed field ablation (PFA). However, data for the circular array catheter are limited. Objective: This study aimed to quantify intravascular hemolysis after atrial fibrillation (AF) ablation with the circular array catheter and compare outcomes with alternate PFA systems. Methods: Consecutive patients undergoing AF ablation with PFA at a single center underwent routine postablation bloodwork collection of hemolysis and renal markers. Data were evaluated according to AF ablation strategy (pulmonary vein isolation [PVI] vs PVI + posterior wall isolation) and between PFA technologies. Predictors of significant hemolysis (plasma free hemoglobin [fHb] >0.5 g/L]) were assessed using logistic regression. Results: A total of 224 patients (209 circular array; 15 pentaspline) were evaluated. The circular array catheter resulted in mild hemolysis (median fHb 0.38 g/dL). The fHb was higher with PVI + posterior wall isolation than PVI alone (0.42 g/dL vs 0.32 g/dL; Conclusion: The circular array catheter is associated with mild, lesion number-dependent hemolysis and demonstrates a more favorable hemolytic profile than the pentaspline catheter. Given that haptoglobin and renal parameters take hours to change, we cannot estimate the effects on these parameters or their clinical relevance from an immediate blood draw.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.